Current Events > So if all the nuclear-powered first world countries...

(+) Yeah! (+)

...are actively looking to get away from nuclear power in favor of alternative power sources, why do places like Iran and NK have any business doing any level of nuclear anything?
---

It's the politically correct way of saying, "we want nukes to defend ourselves from being 'regime changed'"
---

admittedly I'm not too familiar with the situation in Iran, so I'll have to get back to you on that. but the DPRK's nuclear weapons program is 100% a deterrent
---

averagejoel posted...

admittedly I'm not too familiar with the situation in Iran, so I'll have to get back to you on that. but the DPRK's nuclear weapons program is 100% a deterrent

The one that collapsed under a mountain?
---

Firstly, not all nuclear-powered countries are looking to get away from it. In particular, South Korea is expanding their use of nuclear.

Secondly, nuclear power and nuclear weapons should be almost thought of as two different subjects. There's definitely overlap in the underlying science, and nuclear power can be used to produce material for nuclear weapons (although quite hard to do so undetected), but it's really misleading to conflate them as one single issue.

And finally, nuclear power has a high upfront cost, but the ongoing costs are by far the least of any power generation per unit of power generated. When operated correctly (and modern designs make it very hard to do so incorrectly), they are among the least-polluting - both in terms of greenhouse gases and radioactive material - of all power sources. Richer countries can perhaps afford to be like "nah, even though this is actually really safe, people think it isn't so let's use something they like more". Poorer ones often can't.
---

1st world countries not exploiting nuclear power is pure politics. Its still the best power source we have, just people get dumb about reactors, thinking nobody has learned anything about running them and they're all one spilled coffee away from Chernobyl 2.0
---

averagejoel posted...

admittedly I'm not too familiar with the situation in Iran, so I'll have to get back to you on that. but the DPRK's nuclear weapons program is 100% a deterrent

Yeah, pretty much this for the weapons side of things. North Korea are crazy, but they aren't stupid. They know that using even just one (outside of test detonations within their own borders) would bring the world's wrath to the point NK would likely cease to exist. The only time they're going to use them is if they're in a situation where they're going to face that outcome anyway - may as well go out with a bang. (And by extension, the threat of them doing that is the deterrent. Which is also very in line with the strategy of most other nuclear-armed countries too.)
---

DarkTransient posted...

Firstly, not all nuclear-powered countries are looking to get away from it. In particular, South Korea is expanding their use of nuclear.

Secondly, nuclear power and nuclear weapons should be almost thought of as two different subjects. There's definitely overlap in the underlying science, and nuclear power can be used to produce material for nuclear weapons (although quite hard to do so undetected), but it's really misleading to conflate them as one single issue.

And finally, nuclear power has a high upfront cost, but the ongoing costs are by far the least of any power generation per unit of power generated. When operated correctly (and modern designs make it very hard to do so incorrectly), they are among the least-polluting - both in terms of greenhouse gases and radioactive material - of all power sources. Richer countries can perhaps afford to be like "nah, even though this is actually really safe, people think it isn't so let's use something they like more". Poorer ones often can't.

I agree that modern designs are very safe and extremely efficient. My problem is that people will still be stupid enough to overpower every safety mechanism. If even Japan was a victim of corporate greed and cost-cutting at the nuclear level, then I can't really see trusting anyone else to not fuck it up.

Given the mass rhetoric that has flown around from NK and Iran for decades, it's pretty hard for me to believe that they want just nuclear power plants.
---

Standing....on the edge
---

booboy posted...

I agree that modern designs are very safe and extremely efficient. My problem is that people will still be stupid enough to overpower every safety mechanism. If even Japan was a victim of corporate greed and cost-cutting at the nuclear level, then I can't really see trusting anyone else to not fuck it up.

"Outdated design" was also a huge factor there.

Newer designs are designed so that even a deliberate attempt to fuck things up, let alone negligence, is unlikely to do any damage to anything beyond the power plant itself.

And if / when they finally have a successful nuclear fusion reactor design, that "unlikely" changes to "impossible".

The risk of negligence / greed will always be there with existing plants (except very new ones). Nuclear plants cost a lot up front to set up; they become profitable because the ongoing costs are so cheap. But for that exact reason, it is unlikely an owner is going to dismantle an older but still functional design to replace it with a new one, until it reaches the age where it needs replacement (or extremely high-cost repair) anyway. But it will not be so much of an issue for new plants that are built going forward, unless for whatever reason older designs are deliberately used.
---

I'm NUUUUUUCLLLEEEEAAAAR
---

DarkTransient posted...

booboy posted...

I agree that modern designs are very safe and extremely efficient. My problem is that people will still be stupid enough to overpower every safety mechanism. If even Japan was a victim of corporate greed and cost-cutting at the nuclear level, then I can't really see trusting anyone else to not fuck it up.

"Outdated design" was also a huge factor there.

Newer designs are designed so that even a deliberate attempt to fuck things up, let alone negligence, is unlikely to do any damage to anything beyond the power plant itself.

And if / when they finally have a successful nuclear fusion reactor design, that "unlikely" changes to "impossible".

So what would be the earliest year considered a "Newer" design?
---

DarkTransient posted...

Newer designs are designed so that even a deliberate attempt to fuck things up, let alone negligence, is unlikely to do any damage to anything beyond the power plant itself.

And if / when they finally have a successful nuclear fusion reactor design, that "unlikely" changes to "impossible".

It's possible to break anything given enough time.
---

booboy posted...

averagejoel posted...

admittedly I'm not too familiar with the situation in Iran, so I'll have to get back to you on that. but the DPRK's nuclear weapons program is 100% a deterrent

The one that collapsed under a mountain?

what
---

North Korea has never had any such pretenses about their nuclear program. It's always been a weapons program and they've always made it clear that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran's situation is a little hazier but there's no reason to believe they don't want ... well, both, at the very least, if not one over the other.
---

booboy posted...

DarkTransient posted...

booboy posted...

I agree that modern designs are very safe and extremely efficient. My problem is that people will still be stupid enough to overpower every safety mechanism. If even Japan was a victim of corporate greed and cost-cutting at the nuclear level, then I can't really see trusting anyone else to not fuck it up.

"Outdated design" was also a huge factor there.

Newer designs are designed so that even a deliberate attempt to fuck things up, let alone negligence, is unlikely to do any damage to anything beyond the power plant itself.

And if / when they finally have a successful nuclear fusion reactor design, that "unlikely" changes to "impossible".

So what would be the earliest year considered a "Newer" design?

Look up the generations of nuclear reactors. Generation III is the latest that exists outside of experimental reactors; the first Generation III reactor went online in 1996, although that doesn't by any means mean that no Generation II reactors have gone online since then too - the United States had a new Gen2 go online just two years ago. (By comparison, Chernobyl was a Generation I (aka "disaster waiting to happen unless you operate it perfectly") and Fukushima was a Generation II (a bit safer, but still not that hard to mess up).)
---

booboy posted...

Given the mass rhetoric that has flown around from NK and Iran for decades, it's pretty hard for me to believe that they want just nuclear power plants.

Cat's already out of the bag in regards to NK, so no reason to make a stink about them anymore. As for Iran... they're surrounded by enemies and they have a superpower that has been bent on making life as difficult as possible for them for about 40 years now. I don't blame them for wanting nukes and don't care if they get them. If they really do just want clean energy, good for them. If they sneak in a weapon program too, oh well. We had our chance to convince them otherwise and tossed it in the shitter for no good reason.
---